FlyingHighest

Thanks to all for the responses and for speaking the truth. To answer a few of the questions:


1. My original flight was to arrive at 8AM in Zurich. My vacation plans were to rent a car, pick up my family at a friend's house in Zurich, and spend the entire day touring Switzerland while making our way slowly to Annecy. When the Zurich arrival time became 10PM, the thought of driving 4 hours from Zurich to Annecy after not sleeping for almost 36 hours seemed like a dangerous idea. (I have never driven in a foreign country.) So I told my wife to catch a train to Geneva, expecting that AA would have my back and change the destination city. When you've actually endured the hardships of the delay and you haven't read up on this stuff, you just assume any company that cares in the least about customers would let you change to an equivalent destination city.
2. Yes my wife and 11 year old daughter could have continued on to Annecy via train and checked into the hotel but I still would have had to either drive very sleepy or pay for my own accommodations in Zurich. Also this was their (and mine) first time to ever step foot in Europe so not being together was not really a good option. So maybe "stranded" was a stretch but I certainly felt that way about leaving two female members of my family in a foreign country.
3. I am surprised anyone thinks an AA desk agent would have fixed this. AA has maintained in all of our correspondence that never under any circumstances would they change a destination city unless the person paid the fare difference, for a Gold status customer. They MIGHT waive the change fee, but that would be all.
4. When I say AA has been abusing me for 20+ years, I always assumed the grass was not greener on the other side. That's what kept me with AA. And more importantly, I always felt I was fair in letting things slide that seemed beyond their control.
5. Respect to all of the people that had bad experiences with BA as well. Glad we have a forum to speak out about it.
6. Where is the outrage? There is only one reason AA has this policy - to make more money off people that want to change routes. That is an OK business practice, but should not be OK for someone that has been delayed significantly and is trying to catch up with other parties. The whole reason airlines get by with this stuff is because regulation supports the idea that they want AA to always do make the safest choice about grounding an aircraft without consideration of the expenses they might have to pay out. But in the case of giving someone an empty seat on an equivalent flight, there is no real cost to AA. I see it as pure greed.


One last question for the thread. From my research online there is something called Article 19 of the Montreal Convention that does not apply to domestic travel, but appears to apply to international travel. Based on the below, I think I would have a very clear basis to sue for compensation for all financial losses, had BA not helped me out. Putting me on the alternate flight was a reasonable way to help mitigate my damages, especially given that it was equal distance, equal price, and empty. Here are some excerpts from a description I found online of the Montreal Convention:


- Article 19 of the Montreal Convention provides that a carrier can be liable for damages to passengers caused by delay in transportation. However, Article 19 further provides that, the "carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures." "All measures" has not been interpreted to mean an airline must do everything in its power to avoid delay, only what is reasonable. The carrier need only show that it took "all precautions that in sum are appropriate to the risk, i.e. measures reasonably available to defendant and reasonably calculated, in cumulation, to prevent the subject loss." Verdescaex rel., v. American Airlines, Inc., 3:99–CV–2022–BD, 2000 WL 1538704, (N.D. Texas Nov. 17, 2004).






- The question of what constitutes "all reasonable measures" is one for the fact finder. Where the airliner is found not to have taken all reasonable measures and is, as a result, liable, Article 19 permits the recovery of compensatory damages which are reasonable and foreseeable, damages for inconvenience, but bars the recovery of punitive damages and emotional damages. Daniel v. Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd.,59 F. Supp. 2d 993, 986 (N.D. Cal. 1998). Therefore, the cost of the lost days at a vacation resort, car rentals, or hotel accommodations could be recoverable, but damages for any emotional impact of the delay are not. Lee v. American Airlines, Inc.,03-10178, 2004 WL 18008 (5th Cir. Jan. 14, 2004) (holding that nonrefundable vacation expenses are recoverable under Article 19, but the loss of a "refreshing memorable vacation" is a re-characterization of mental anguish damages, which are not recoverable).


A passenger's ability to recover under Article 19, however, is also subject to the per-passenger liability limit of 4,694 Special DrawingRights (currently about US $7,200) set forth in Article 22(1). See also Inflation Adjustments to Liability Limits Governed by the MontrealConvention Effective December 30, 2009, 74 F.R. 59017-18 (Nov. 16, 2009)(increasing the limitation from 4,150 SDRs to 4,694 SDRs.) This liability limit is removed pursuant to Article 22(5), if the passenger can prove that the delay damages resulted from airline conduct "done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result."
In sum, the individual facts and circumstances both behind the reasons for the delay and the airline'sactions to accommodate passengers following the delay in each case will ultimately determine whether liability exists and the extent of available damages.